US, MA: Another front for fairness
Jul. 24th, 2009 04:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ftmichael posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transhttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/24/another_front_for_fairness/
Another front for fairness
July 24, 2009
AT A HEARING at the State House last week, supporters of a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression outlined the myriad barriers that confront transgender people - those who are born male but live as females, or vice versa. Unlike those whose religions or sexual orientations expose them to discrimination, transgender people might not be able to avoid the issue when applying for jobs, apartments, or loans. The truth may become evident from a check on a Social Security number or a search of credit reports.
Transgender advocates aren’t looking for sympathy. The goal of the legislation, introduced by Representative Carl Sciortino, is to give transgender residents of Massachusetts space to live without discrimination or violence. The bill responds sensibly to a real problem, and deserves to pass.
Transgender people don’t make the transition lightly; many, though not all, undergo gender-reassignment surgery. The case of Dana Zircher, profiled recently by the Globe’s Bella English, underscores the difficulty of the process, even when individuals have supportive families and employers. Zircher, a software designer and a parent, has undergone a divorce, surgery, and 350 hours of electrolysis.
Instead of addressing the complexities of actual people’s lives, though, opponents are trying to undermine Sciortino’s legislation by calling it a “Bathroom Bill.’’ The difference between a transgender woman and a man who wants to infiltrate a ladies’ room is perfectly obvious, at least to anyone who is not deliberately obfuscating the issue. The difference would surely be obvious to police officers and judges. Thirteen other states, including Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island, and dozens of cities, including Boston and Cambridge, already forbid discrimination against transgender people - and public washrooms are as safe as ever.
Sciortino’s bill would also add gender identity and expression to the list of characteristics covered by the state’s hate-crimes law, which now targets crimes motivated by the victim’s race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. Punishment for crimes motivated by bias against transgender people would be toughened. Some argue against hate-crime laws on the grounds that they single out thoughts. We disagree. In any case, Massachusetts has a law now, and it makes little sense to exclude a group of people who are highly susceptible to violence.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing the bill is that the very existence of transgender people makes some others uneasy. Time and again, though, this state has shown a commitment to civil rights - a commitment the Legislature can reaffirm by passing this bill.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Another front for fairness
July 24, 2009
AT A HEARING at the State House last week, supporters of a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression outlined the myriad barriers that confront transgender people - those who are born male but live as females, or vice versa. Unlike those whose religions or sexual orientations expose them to discrimination, transgender people might not be able to avoid the issue when applying for jobs, apartments, or loans. The truth may become evident from a check on a Social Security number or a search of credit reports.
Transgender advocates aren’t looking for sympathy. The goal of the legislation, introduced by Representative Carl Sciortino, is to give transgender residents of Massachusetts space to live without discrimination or violence. The bill responds sensibly to a real problem, and deserves to pass.
Transgender people don’t make the transition lightly; many, though not all, undergo gender-reassignment surgery. The case of Dana Zircher, profiled recently by the Globe’s Bella English, underscores the difficulty of the process, even when individuals have supportive families and employers. Zircher, a software designer and a parent, has undergone a divorce, surgery, and 350 hours of electrolysis.
Instead of addressing the complexities of actual people’s lives, though, opponents are trying to undermine Sciortino’s legislation by calling it a “Bathroom Bill.’’ The difference between a transgender woman and a man who wants to infiltrate a ladies’ room is perfectly obvious, at least to anyone who is not deliberately obfuscating the issue. The difference would surely be obvious to police officers and judges. Thirteen other states, including Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island, and dozens of cities, including Boston and Cambridge, already forbid discrimination against transgender people - and public washrooms are as safe as ever.
Sciortino’s bill would also add gender identity and expression to the list of characteristics covered by the state’s hate-crimes law, which now targets crimes motivated by the victim’s race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. Punishment for crimes motivated by bias against transgender people would be toughened. Some argue against hate-crime laws on the grounds that they single out thoughts. We disagree. In any case, Massachusetts has a law now, and it makes little sense to exclude a group of people who are highly susceptible to violence.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing the bill is that the very existence of transgender people makes some others uneasy. Time and again, though, this state has shown a commitment to civil rights - a commitment the Legislature can reaffirm by passing this bill.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.